Permanently deletes a document type from Paperless-NGX, affecting all documents that use it.
⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Permanently delete a document type from the entire system. This will affect ALL documents that use this type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm this destructive operation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Must be true to confirm this destructive operation",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "confirm"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose two important traits: the deletion is permanent (irreversible) and it cascades to ALL documents using that type. It omits permission requirements and what happens to the affected documents' type assignment, so it is strong but not complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with the warning icon and DESTRUCTIVE keyword front-loaded, followed immediately by the blast radius. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a system-wide destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the danger well but leaves open the confirmation requirement, authorization needs, and the effect on documents that reference the deleted type. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50% (id is undocumented), and the description says nothing about either parameter. Notably, it never mentions the required 'confirm' flag, which is central to a destructive operation, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('delete a document type') and adds scope ('from the entire system'), which distinguishes it from bulk_edit_document_types. However, it doesn't name any alternative operation (e.g., update_document_type), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_document_type or bulk_edit_document_types, nor any stated prerequisites. The destructive warning implies caution but gives no condition that selects this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.